To think Gill Pharaoh had the ideal end of life

Well, yes, pacemaker removal would be a little invasive, wouldn't it? I'm not sure how things work now, but if I got dementia and didn't kill myself (the old-fashioned, unassisted way), I'd want to stop taking any medications and have a DNR, so that hopefully a heart attack would carry me off! I think striving to keep someone alive when they have dementia shouldn't be a priority – just day to day happiness and comfort.

The problem is that you can't just say, remove someone pacemaker because they have dementia. Some, definitely not all, go to a happy place in their dementia and those that dont can still experience pleasure.

I think sometimes modern medicine ends up keeping people alive beyond when they should be – and beyond what they wish. For instance, a dementia patient shouldn't be on medications for prolonging their life, like heart medication (do they do that now?), just medications that make them comfortable in the moment.

But for the most part, I think people have good quality of life into their twilight years, and should be supported in that. I fear that the normalisation of assisted suicide will lead to people (particularly women) feeling pressured to kill themselves early on in their older years, so as not to risk burdening their children.

Congratulations, you've not only told me what I think but exactly why I think it.

Your wrong on all counts please stop doing it.

It was outsourced along with everything in the Thatcher + years and there was no choice. Tbf it is more expensive to do it in house because of sick pay, annual leave etc but thats because they treat staff properly

So what Gill Pharaoh chose to do makes sense. She died before she may have needed care, which isn’t always readily available. I think there are a lot worse things than euthanasia.

I’m not a policy maker, and I can’t come up with all the solutions to massive issues like that first thing in a Sunday morning.

I do know that it would be wrong and inhumane to force euthanasia on people because ‘sorry but we’ve run out of money’. The irony of that being it wouldn’t actually be euthanasia anyway would it? It would be something entirely more sinister.

@Marmalademorning You never answered my questions. Who is going to look after the increasing number of people who need care in the UK?

So who gets to decide when someone’s time is up? The tax man when you’ve run out of money? Or the NHS when you reach 75?

My nan lived until she was 96. It was only the last two years of her life that she went downhill. She lived a relatively independent life for most of it.

I feel deeply uncomfortable with some of the posts on this thread. People are perfectly entitled to their opinions. But we need to be very careful with this so we don’t end up in a nightmare scenario where people have to worry about ‘euthanasia’ being forced upon them.

Maybe humans are living too long? Quality of life over quantity of life.

We could just Logan's Run it and kill everyone over the age of 80, but I feel that would (fairly) be frowned upon.

I'm afraid your belief that we can somehow tell 'rational' suicide from any other suicide is what's simple minded, here.

Are you saying that you think a 75-year-old in good health, who has children, grandchildren, a partner, and a fulfilling life, but who has talked about dying to avoid old age for decades, and who can pay for a suicide clinic, is a 'rational' suicide? But a chronically depressed, single 50-year-old who has suffered immense trauma they've never been able to move past, and has poor quality of life, who also doesn't have the money to access a suicide clinic, isn't rational?

Hmm...

By what criteria are you deciding that? Because to me, it makes more sense that the 50-year-old should wish to die (not that I think they should be helped to!)

How do you decide who needs help to avoid it, and who should be assisted to receive it? Because from what I've read (partially paralysed women, depressed women, women grieving a child's death - a lot of women, now I think about it), it really seems to simply come down to whoever can afford to pay for the trip and clinic.

And I'm not scared at all. Why would I be? I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of decrying suicide as terrible, while also praising suicide as great. It doesn't really work.

What are the solutions to all three of these scenarios? We have a massive carer shortage in the Uk which is getting worse. We have an aging population and a severe mental health crisis. If there is no one to look after people who need care what is the solution?

It isn’t an act of kindness to kill people with mental health issues when they are depressed and say they want to die, or homeless people, or old people who’ve been made to feel like a burden on society though. There are solutions to all three of these scenarios without the need for ‘euthanasia’.

Unfortunately in some countries, this euthanasia is seen as perfectly acceptable in these instances.

If it were only used when someone is in excruciating physical pain that can’t be stopped then it would be acceptable. But that’s not always been the case.

This is so simple minded. Not all suicide is the same. People who need help to avoid it should receive it. That does not preclude other people making a rational decision and receiving help to achieve it.

What scares you so much about other people making a decision that their own life takes more effort than it returns in rewards for being alive?

Isn’t it “an act of kindness” to kill people if they are suffering? If there are no carers available or spaces in care homes what will happen? Who will look after the people who need care?

Thank you!!

Fair enough!

Technically everyone who is capable of movement is capable of choosing to end their life at any time, and I disagree with assisted suicide in any case other than where a person is paralysed and can't do it themselves, or is in the final stages of a terminal illness.

But I appreciate the consistency of your views, and can respect that.

I do agree with you!! Suicide is a positive thing if it ends your suffering. We are all going to die. Give people the choice (by having assisted dying) to choose to end their life when they want to.

@Itchthescratch When abortion was legalised, it was subject to very tight restrictions. And supposedly still is, if you look at the legislation

In practice, the safeguards have been watered down. This may be a good thing. i offer no view on that

But it's a chilling reminder that the same would likely happen with assisted dying

Killing off frail, elderly, unwell, poor people or those with poor mental health would likely become "an act of kindness". And save the economy, reduce NHS waiting lists, free up housing, therefore might be popular with people who are young and fit. As a society, we really don't want to sleepwalk into that, IMHO

Which is the case for practically all suicide victims; they were in a state of suffering of some kind, and now they're no longer living, so no longer suffering. So you agree with me – assisted suicide for anyone who wants it who is competent, means that suicide committed by competent people is now a positive thing.

@Imdunfer
And many people who commit suicide don't want to live.

Infantile sarcasm? I was making a point. If people who don't want to live killing themselves is a good thing, then suicide can no longer be considered a bad thing, so long as the person is competent. Suicide is no longer a problem to be solved.

Many people who commit suicide aren't desperate, they've just decided they don't want to live anymore because they aren't happy, or they've struggled all their life with trauma that will never go away, or they don't enjoy their quality of life, or they have simply had enough. Just like those who commit assisted suicide. What's the difference? The 10k (or however much) to pay to go to Switzerland?

We really can't say suicide is terrible and devastating, while also actively touting (assisted) suicide for healthy people as a positive thing.

Suicide is a positive thing if it means you are no longer suffering by living.

You don't think it matters that the personal opinion of the woman was that she didn't want to live the additional years she could have lived?

You think that comment compares with your own infantile sarcasm?

Can you accept that other people's opinion on the sanctity of life, of living life simply for the sake of not being dead, is not the same as yours?

By all means argue against assisted dying, there are some arguments against it, but your sarcastic post trivialising the actions of people who kill themselves out of desperation was really very offensive.

Not really because 99.9999999% of us will never get hit by a bus, but we are definitely all going to die.